County Council makes headway on solar energy ordinance
Darlington County Council members Le Flowers and David Coker discussed county regulations for solar energy systems at a January 17 work session. Photo by Samantha Lyles
By Samantha Lyles, Staff Writer, slyles@newsandpress.net
Darlington County Council held a work session January 17 and came away with a near unanimous consensus on how to regulate the location and maintenance of solar energy systems.
After several citizens protested a proposed solar farm in the Byrdtown community last fall, council repeatedly referred the county’s renewable energy ordinance (No. 16-19) back to the Darlington County Planning Commission for review and revision. At council’s January 3 meeting, council member Le Flowers asked for this work session in order to hammer out an ordinance that would be acceptable to county residents and solar energy developers alike.
Interim county administrator Charles Stewart said that as solar energy development increases in South Carolina, more communities will need to codify local standards for construction and location.
“Everybody is struggling to come up with some plan to deal with solar energy systems,” said Stewart, noting that both Jasper and Colleton Counties now have renewable energy ordinances on the books. “We’re probably as progressive as any (county) in trying to deal with this issue.”
Contested issues mostly involved the minimum setback distance from the nearest residence to the solar energy system’s equipment or fence line, and the height of vegetative buffers (trees and shrubs) meant to obscure the solar panel installation from the view of residential neighbors.
Stewart gave each council member a wireless clicker which they used to vote anonymously on pertinent issues outlined in a Powerpoint presentation. By the time Stewart finished reviewing these questions, council members could see where they disagreed and where they had consensus. From there, they made recommendations on how to amend the ordinance to reflect their considered wishes.
Amendments to be included in second reading of Ordinance 16-19 include the following:
* The setback distance between a solar energy system’s fence line and the nearest residential property line must be a minimum of 50 feet. The minimum setback distance from the fence line to the nearest residence must be at least 200 feet. Council member David Coker suggested 250 feet, but the balance of council agreed that 200 should be sufficient.
* Council opted not to cap a project’s size by acreage, but by total power output. The maximum allowable wattage output for a solar energy system will be 75mw, and the minimum physical size will be 1 acre.
* The required vegetative buffer shall be comprised of plantings that will match 100 percent of the solar panels height within three years. Buffer plantings will only be required along borders facing residences, not along borders facing highways or non-residential properties.
* Developers will not be required to take out a bond to pay for future decommissioning costs when the solar energy system reaches the end of its life.
Most council members – excepting Mr. Coker – agreed that a decommissioning bond is unnecessary, since even in a worst-case scenario where a developer abandons a solar site, a landowner could recoup any cleanup cost by salvaging steel from the panel mounts. The photovoltaic panels can be sent to a landfill.
Flowers asked solar developer Lesley Williams of Southern Current LLC what it would cost to take out a $50,000 surety bond for site decommissioning. Williams replied that while the bond issuance cost would be only “a couple of hundred dollars,” the total amount of the bond ($50k) would be subtracted from the solar project’s working capital.
Darlington County currently has nine solar energy systems in the application and permitting process. In most cases, solar developers lease unused farmland for these projects, providing passive income to landowners and higher tax revenues to the county.
At council’s November 7 meeting, Darlington County Assessor Kyle Johnson was asked what kind of tax revenue the county might see if landowners begin leasing or selling their unused farmland for solar energy development.
“Farmland is taxed at an agricultural rate, and that means we’re taxing it at a use value of about $1.90 or $2. When that use value changes and goes to commercial or 6-percent residential, we still keep it at the market value of what it would sell for on the open market on average, so the tax dollars per acre would go up to about $45 or $50 an acre,” said Johnson.
Further, Johnson explained that structures and equipment used to build a solar farm – such as the photovoltaic panels, wiring, and lights would all be taxed at 10.5 percent by the Department of Revenue as utility infrastructure, yielding “a significant gain” for the county.
Council member Bobby Kilgo said that Darlington County must think ahead on matters of property tax revenue, citing the closing of Duke Energy’s H.B. Robinson coal-fired plant as a warning that the county cannot expect current industries to continue indefinitely.
“We got hit pretty hard when the coal-fired plant closed down. This is a way to help bring it back,” said Kilgo.
Darlington County Council will vote on second reading of Ordinance 16-19 at their next regular meeting, scheduled for 6 p.m., February 6, at the Courthouse Annex located at 1625 Harry Byrd Hwy in Darlington.
